Free Liberal

Coordinating towards higher values

Hillary vs. McCain Faux Pas: Which Matters More?

by Paul Gessing

By now, most readers are undoubtedly aware of Hillary Clinton's fib about her coming under fire (video here) on the tarmac in Bosnia back in the 1990s. While Clinton has been rightfully pilloried for her remarks, another candidate, John McCain, was making equally-ridiculous remarks, yet was being given a pass by the media.

McCain, an extreme hawk who has asserted that American troops might be in Iraq for 100 years, recently stated that Al Qaeda in Iraq (a Sunni organization) is receiving support from Iran (a Shiite organization). This was, unfortunately, not an isolated incident and it either shows a great deal of ignorance on the Senator's part or is an outright lie because the two sects hate each other almost as much as they hate us.

Unfortunately, the media, either not grasping the importance of McCain's gaffe, has worked to downplay the error/lie and even argued that McCain is viewed as such an "expert" on foreign policy that he should simply be given a pass. Unfortunately, McCain is only perceived as an expert by the media because he is a hawk.

Is it any wonder that the media give Democrats the advantage on economic policy issues and Republicans the advantage on foreign policy? The media by and large love big government!


« Ron Paul r(EVOL)tionary triumphs | Main | Wal Mart Katrina Response Illustrates Government's Failure »

Comments

It's true; this mis-statement will hurt him in future debates with the Democratic candidate. It would be in his best interest, I think, for Mr. McCain to do some homework before then.
Although Mrs. Clinton has been caught in a lie, she may still fair better than Obama in a matchup with Mr. McCain regarding foreign policy, considering all of the misinformation floating around about Obama being a secret Muslim who's unpatriotic and so on.

# posted at by Gabriel

> ... the two sects hate each other almost as much as they hate us.

While McCain's statement is clearly ridiculous, I think Paul means this as hyperbole; it's not very meaningful when you get to know Sunni and Shia Muslims-- indeed, some of "us" are Sunni and Shia. Like most of us, most Sunni and Shia Muslims don't go through life filled with venom for each other or "us."

# posted at by John Stephens

While John Stephens is certainly correct in assisting with my argument that not all Muslims of various sects hate each other, I'm not talking about those who are here.

I think it is safe to say that states dominated by Shia are considered geopolitical rivals by the Sunni nations and vice-versa. That is the relevant point, not whether all of these individual adherents hate each other.

# posted at by Paul Gessing

Actually, though I can't recall the source (some book on Osama Bin Laden?), I seem to recall an observation that Iran, though Shiite in orientation, found the zealotry of Sunni operatives (such as Al Quaida) admirable, and somewhat lacking among their Shiite counterparts.

I'm no fan of John McCain, but it is nearly as simplistic to suppose Sunni and Shiite cannot put aside their historical feud to face a common foe, as it is to suppose "they hate us for our freedom." Sunnis may be the majority in Iran, but that doesn't mean the Iranian State (and remember, The State != The Church (or Mosque or Temple or what have you) != The People) cannot work with Shiites when it is pragmatic to do so.

# posted at by DASawyer